Index: src/compiler/checkgen.lisp
===================================================================
RCS file: /mnt/hd2/lesha/cvsroot/sbcl/src/compiler/checkgen.lisp,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.8
diff -u -F^( -r1.1.1.8 checkgen.lisp
--- src/compiler/checkgen.lisp 2002/02/08 03:52:32 1.1.1.8
+++ src/compiler/checkgen.lisp 2002/09/13 07:56:32
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ (defun continuation-check-types (cont)
;;; -- nobody uses the value, or
;;; -- safety is totally unimportant, or
;;; -- the continuation is an argument to an unknown function, or
-;;; -- the continuation is an argument to a known function that has
+;;; -- the continuation is an argument to a known function that has
;;; no IR2-Convert method or :FAST-SAFE templates that are
;;; compatible with the call's type.
;;;
@@ -250,25 +250,10 @@ (defun continuation-check-types (cont)
;;; type checks. The penalty for erring by being too speculative is
;;; much nastier, e.g. falling through without ever being able to find
;;; an appropriate VOP.
-;;;
-;;; If there is a compile-time type error, then we always return true
-;;; unless the DEST is a full call. With a full call, the theory is
-;;; that the type error is probably from a declaration in (or on) the
-;;; callee, so the callee should be able to do the check. We want to
-;;; let the callee do the check, because it is possible that the error
-;;; is really in the callee, not the caller. We don't want to make
-;;; people recompile all calls to a function when they were originally
-;;; compiled with a bad declaration (or an old type assertion derived
-;;; from a definition appearing after the call.)
(defun probable-type-check-p (cont)
(declare (type continuation cont))
(let ((dest (continuation-dest cont)))
- (cond ((eq (continuation-type-check cont) :error)
- (if (and (combination-p dest)
- (eq (combination-kind dest) :error))
- nil
- t))
- ((or (not dest)
+ (cond ((or (not dest)
(policy dest (zerop safety)))
nil)
((basic-combination-p dest)
@@ -276,6 +261,19 @@ (defun probable-type-check-p (cont)
(cond ((eq cont (basic-combination-fun dest)) t)
((eq kind :local) t)
((member kind '(:full :error)) nil)
+ ;; :ERROR means that we have an invalid syntax of
+ ;; the call and the callee will detect it before
+ ;; thinking about types. When KIND is :FULL, the
+ ;; theory is that the type assertion is probably
+ ;; from a declaration in (or on) the callee, so the
+ ;; callee should be able to do the check. We want
+ ;; to let the callee do the check, because it is
+ ;; possible that by the time of call that
+ ;; declaration will be changed and we do not want
+ ;; to make people recompile all calls to a function
+ ;; when they were originally compiled with a bad
+ ;; declaration. (See also bug 35.)
+
((fun-info-ir2-convert kind) t)
(t
(dolist (template (fun-info-templates kind) nil)
@@ -430,25 +428,6 @@ (defun emit-type-warning (node)
what (type-specifier dtype) atype-spec))))
(values))
-;;; Mark CONT as being a continuation with a manifest type error. We
-;;; set the kind to :ERROR, and clear any FUN-INFO if the
-;;; continuation is an argument to a known call. The last is done so
-;;; that the back end doesn't have to worry about type errors in
-;;; arguments to known functions. This clearing is inhibited for
-;;; things with IR2-CONVERT methods, since we can't do a full call to
-;;; funny functions.
-(defun mark-error-continuation (cont)
- (declare (type continuation cont))
- (setf (continuation-%type-check cont) :error)
- (let ((dest (continuation-dest cont)))
- (when (and (combination-p dest)
- (let ((kind (basic-combination-kind dest)))
- (or (eq kind :full)
- (and (fun-info-p kind)
- (not (fun-info-ir2-convert kind))))))
- (setf (basic-combination-kind dest) :error)))
- (values))
-
;;; Loop over all blocks in COMPONENT that have TYPE-CHECK set,
;;; looking for continuations with TYPE-CHECK T. We do two mostly
;;; unrelated things: detect compile-time type errors and determine if
@@ -484,12 +463,11 @@ (defun generate-type-checks (component)
(when (block-type-check block)
(do-nodes (node cont block)
(let ((type-check (continuation-type-check cont)))
- (unless (member type-check '(nil :error :deleted))
+ (unless (member type-check '(nil :deleted))
(let ((atype (continuation-asserted-type cont)))
(do-uses (use cont)
(unless (values-types-equal-or-intersect
(node-derived-type use) atype)
- (mark-error-continuation cont)
(unless (policy node (= inhibit-warnings 3))
(emit-type-warning use))))))
(when (eq type-check t)
Index: src/compiler/node.lisp
===================================================================
RCS file: /mnt/hd2/lesha/cvsroot/sbcl/src/compiler/node.lisp,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.12
diff -u -F^( -r1.1.1.12 node.lisp
--- src/compiler/node.lisp 2002/02/09 04:12:02 1.1.1.12
+++ src/compiler/node.lisp 2002/09/10 05:12:36
@@ -124,14 +124,9 @@ (def!struct (continuation
;; will be used. In the latter case, LTN must ensure that a safe
;; implementation *is* used.
;;
- ;; :ERROR
- ;; There is a compile-time type error in some use of this
- ;; continuation. A type check should still be generated, but be
- ;; careful.
- ;;
;; This is computed lazily by CONTINUATION-DERIVED-TYPE, so use
;; CONTINUATION-TYPE-CHECK instead of the %'ed slot accessor.
- (%type-check t :type (member t nil :deleted :no-check :error))
+ (%type-check t :type (member t nil :deleted :no-check))
;; something or other that the back end annotates this continuation with
(info nil)
;; uses of this continuation in the lexical environment. They are